Lo Castro v The Queen

The applicant, Lo Castro, appealed against convictions for sexual offences. The appeal concerned the admissibility of certain "relationship evidence" and the adequacy of jury directions. The Court of Appeal considered multiple grounds of appeal, including errors in admitting uncharged acts of sexual misconduct, insufficient directions regarding delayed complaints, the safety and satisfaction of verdicts, alleged misconduct of trial counsel, and the voluntariness of guilty pleas entered in a subsequent trial.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct and other "relationship evidence" without adequate directions to the jury on its permissible use. The court also considered whether the jury directions regarding delayed complaints were sufficient, whether the verdicts were illogical, and whether the conduct of trial counsel or the trial judge resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Further, the court examined the validity of guilty pleas entered in a second trial, questioning whether they were free and voluntary.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct without providing sufficient directions to the jury on its limited use, specifically warning against its use as propensity evidence. The court also noted that while some "relationship evidence" might have been relevant to explain the context of the alleged offences, other aspects of this evidence, particularly concerning a witness other than the complainant, were irrelevant to the facts in issue. The court concluded that the cumulative effect of these errors, particularly the insufficient directions regarding the uncharged sexual acts, meant that the first trial had miscarried.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions from the first trial, and ordered a retrial of the counts involving Ms A. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal on the grounds and for the reasons explained in its judgment.